Memorandum submitted by Greenpeace
SUMMARY OF
GREENPEACE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt a clear policy objective to establish
the UK as world leader in the commercial wave power industry.
2. Set ambitious targets to achieve electricity
from wave power for 2010, 2020, 2030.
3. Set a Scottish target to obtain 10 per
cent of Scotland's electricity from wave power in 10 years.
4. Allocate £50 million per year to
develop wave power.
5. The trajectory of granting should be
big grants for small projects then smaller grants for big projects.
6. Develop a strategy to make the UK wave
programme sufficiently attractive to draw in "big hitters",
including the large maritime engineering and oil and gas interests.
Big company support is required to overcome early obstacles and
diversification would bring great benefit to the UK regions that
are starting to suffer from the economic effects of decline in
the UK oil and gas sector.
7. Use some of the grant money to set up
a UK test centre for wave power (and tidal current power) on Orkney.
8. Ensure a domestic commercial market for
wave power. Grant funding should be used to bridge the gap so
that electricity from wave power becomes a competitive option
for utility companies to fulfil their renewable energy obligations.
9. Cut the red tape by creating a one-stop-shop
for allocation and approval of sites for offshore wave power developments.
10. Institute rules and incentives to ensure
that the utility companies undertake a far-reaching programme
to up-grade the weak peripheral grid areas critical to exploitation
of the wave power resource.
1. Introduction
Greenpeace experience and expertise in renewable
energy arises from more than a decade campaigning for the clean
renewable energy sources of wind, solar and wave power, as solutions
to the problems of climate change caused by mankind's use of fossil
fuels.
By the standards of climate science, it is not
difficult to calculate how much carbon dioxide can be released
to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels before mankind will
break an ecological limit of 1ºC long-term global temperature
rise. The UN Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases have advised that
going above this limit "may elicit rapid, unpredictable and
non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage".
The startling result is that our "carbon budget" is
less than a quarter of existing fossil fuel reserves. Reserves
are the portion of global fossil fuel resources already defined
as economically and technically viable, the total resource estimate
runs to four times as much again. In other words, it is not a
question of "running out of fossil fuels": the question
is how to keep 95 per cent of remaining fossil fuels underground
whilst supplying the world's energy requirementsi. The answer
lies in replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy in the next
30-40 years.
Greenpeace has recently been actively campaigning
for wave power. In 1999 Greenpeace launched a campaign in Scotland
following the announcement that Scottish Renewables Order funding
was to support the building of three wave power machines. The
campaign included a series of business conferences around Scotland
at Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Islay. The campaign also included
bringing the Greenpeace flagship, Rainbow Warrior, to these locations
to publicise the campaign and engage the public. In addition,
Greenpeace contributed personnel, boats and equipment to carry
out initial seabed surveying work on Islay to assist the progress
of the wavepower companies Wavegen and Ocean Power Delivery. The
response to the Greenpeace campaign was overwhelmingly enthusiastic,
from a wide range of sectors, including politicians, businesses,
trades unions, public sector organisations and the members of
the public. The Greenpeace campaign pack forms Appendix 1 (not
printed).
This encouraging response led to the formation
of the Commission for Wave Power in Scotland to carry forward
the impetus of the campaign[1].
The Commission works to the remit that it will "determine
how to capitalise on the industrial opportunities offered by Scotland's
position as world leader in wave power". It has recently
produced a five-point plan for wave power in Scotland and a report
recommending the establishment of a wave power test centre (Appendix
2 [not printed]), both of which Greenpeace endorses.
This submission concentrates on wave power,
reflecting Greenpeace's involvement. However, a number of the
arguments made here about UK expertise would apply equally to
tidal current power. Greenpeace views with optimism the recent
encouraging developments in tidal current power technology.
2. Why is wave power worth developing?
The vast resource was recognised as far back
as 1977, when the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB)
said of wave power that "its development potential along
the UK west coast exceeds the present capacity of the CEGB".
It further noted that "There are currently 120GW of wave
power being dissipated on the beaches—nearly five times
the average demand"ii. More recently, ETSU put the accessible
resource at double the UK electricity supplyiii. The UK has one
of the world's best wave power resources.
This resource could be and should be a large
part of the answer to our environmentally disastrous societal
addiction to fossil fuels. Alongside this environmental imperative
there is a startling commercial opportunity assessed by the Government's
leading wave adviser, Tom Thorpe, as a total capital investment
value of £500 billion globally and £10 billion in the
UKiv. A similar development trajectory to that displayed by wind
power would result in realisation of this market potential by
2020v.
But the UK is not necessarily going to win first-mover
advantage in this emergent market. Yes, the UK retains some of
the world's leading wave power experts and some of its most innovative
companies, despite the ill-judged closure of the previous DTI
wave programme in 1982. And John Battle's announcement in 1999
to re-start R&D funding for wave power is a welcome step in
the right direction. However, the context of this announcement
was a DTA renewable strategy document that only sees wave power
as having potential in the "longer term (after 2010)".
This categorisation shows no appreciation of the urgency of the
task required if the UK is not to lose its world lead in wave
power in the same way it lost its once world-leading position
in wind power. The DTI has taken the view that wave power is 10
years away for so long that it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The tiny scale of the funding announced reflects
this lack of ambition. Tom Thorpe also points out that of the
15 wave power devices deployed in the last two decades, only two
have been in the UK. A warning note for the UK should be sounded
by the recent decision by the oil company Woodside to buy a stake
in US company Ocean Power Technologies, as their "first major
investment in a renewable energy technology"vi. The scale
of their ambition is indicated by their option to purchase, by
2012, half a million tonnes of CO2 credits, which implies installation
of some 5,000 of Ocean Power Technologies' wave power machines
by that date[2].
A sharp contrast with the UK is the Danish support programme which
clearly means business: it has a clear structure of how smaller
grants will lead to bigger grants as machines prove themselves.
Over four years up to 2002 the programme was projected to spend
DKK40 millionvii, which is £3 million, approximately triple
the estimated UK expenditure on wave power over the same period,
despite the fact that Denmark is one tenth of the size of the
UK. Denmark has successfully captured the lion's share of the
$3.5 billion wind power market from a position behind the UK.
The race to win the wave power market is on, and now is the time
for the UK to give its runners a decisive boost.
3. A winning strategy for UK wave power
"The market will decide" has embedded
itself in Government thinking ever since the politically embarrassing
demise of various nationalised industries, and has resulted in
statements on renewables by successive DTI Ministers along the
lines that it is "not for the Government to pick winners".
However understandable the desire to escape from accusations of
"dirigisme", and however poignant the examples of past
Governments' abilities to pick failures like the nuclear industry,
the fact is that this is not an adequate Government response to
embryo technologies and infant industries. A distinction should
be clearly drawn between backing individual firms or inventions,
and backing sectors that are rapidly approaching maturity, and
for which there is a pressing environmental, commercial and societal
case, of which wave power is a fine example.
It is a well-worn British lament, based on all
too many examples, that the UK fails to bring outstanding UK research
to successful commercialisation. It would be wrong to lay the
blame entirely at Government's door, but there is certainly a
strong Government role to be played in addressing this malaise.
There are, of course, world-beating British success stories, and
it is heartening that one of these is ideally suited to assist
wave power achieve commercial lift-off. The offshore oil and gas
sector, whilst itself environmentally unsustainable, does have
exactly the skills and technology required to build and install
wave power machines that will survive in the hostile marine environments
where wave power is highest. "Synergies between renewable
and conventional marine energy industries" are one of two
main themes identified by The Marine Foresight Panel of the Office
of Science and Technology. Their recent reportviii highlights
10 priority technical areas where "the vast experience of
the offshore hydrocarbon industry should be extremely useful to
the emerging marine renewable energy industry". The UK also
has a long and proud history of shipbuilding, albeit in sad decline,
and it is notable that at a recent wave power conference, Harland
and Wolff stated that they "have a role and an opportunity
in getting actively involved in offshore renewable energy . .
. this is going to be very big business"ix.
So, the UK has the natural resource, the expertise
in wave power technologies, and the manufacturing and industrial
capacity to accomplish the tough task of putting wave machines
in place. The question is: what plan should the Government adopt
to harness these capacities? Greenpeace believes the following
set of measures can turn the UK's technical potential into commercial
reality.
1. Adopt a clear policy objective to establish
the UK as world leader in the commercial wave power industry.
2. Set ambitious targets to achieve electricity
from wave power. There must be a target for the next 10-year period,
but targets for 2020 and 2030 should also be set because these
will be a major encouragement for potential investors to commit
to the UK.
3. Energy policy is not a devolved responsibility,
but renewable energy policy is under discussion in the devolved
legislatures and regions. Given Scotland's special position with
wave power firms and resources, the Scottish Executive should
set the ambitious but attainable objective to obtain 10 per cent
of Scotland's electricity from wave power in 10 years, and Westminster
should encourage and assist them in this endeavour.
4. Make much more grant money available
for wave power. It would be quite reasonable for the UK to aim
for a programme an order of magnitude larger than that of Denmark.
Greenpeace has proposed a Green Fuel Fund whereby, instead of
lowering taxes on fossil fuel, just one pence of that tax, £500
million per year, should be used to promote renewable energy and
green fuels. £50 million per year should be spent to develop
wave power.
5. The trajectory of granting should be
big grants for small projects then smaller grants for big projects,
to support companies through the disproportionately high early
development costs and risks so as to achieve the subsequent economies
of up-scaling and cost reductions from technology development.
6. The Government should develop a strategy,
of which the above measures would be a major part, to make the
UK wave programme sufficiently attractive to draw in "big
hitters", including the large maritime engineering and oil
and gas interests. There inevitably will be hitches and delays
with deployment of the first round of commercial wave power machines,
just as the first offshore oil and gas faced drawbacks and problems.
Big company support is required to overcome such early obstacles—a
challenge it has shown it can easily rise to. The development
of the North Sea's fossil fuel reserves is a highly pertinent
example, albeit one which has been pursued to the great detriment
of the climate. Diversification of this nature would bring great
benefit to the UK regions that are starting to suffer from the
economic effects of decline in the UK oil and gas sector.
7. Some of the grant money should be used
to set up a UK test centre for wave power. The cost of a suitable
test facility is a major obstacle to the UK's wave power companies.
Site and wave resource surveys, cabling to shore, grid connection
and shorebase equipment, monitoring and maintenance facilities
are examples of infrastructure elements that could be made use
of by any and all potential wave power businesses to test and
show-case their products. Without such a facility, the additional
cost on top of the cost of building a prototype or pre-production
device over-reaches the resources available to most potential
wave power developers. Both Ocean Power Delivery and Wavegen are
seriously and urgently considering whether to go to a commercial
test facility planned in Portugal, rather than test in the UK,
despite their preference to stay herex. The value of a place for
the UK wave power companies to showcase their technologies must
not be underestimated. A test centre provides a key part of this
showcase. Recent discussions with Scotland's wave power companies
indicate that Orkney is emerging as leading contender. The centre
might in addition serve a similarly valuable function for tidal
current power.
8. The other necessary part of the showcase
is a domestic commercial market for wave power. For too long the
DTI has made the extraordinary assumption that UK companies can
somehow win export markets without any domestic market to give
them a base and shop-window to expand from (DTI policy on photovoltaics
provides an object lesson). This bears no relation to commercial
reality. The measures above will help ensure a domestic market
for wave power, but it will also be essential to ensure that the
wave power electricity from the first wave power devices can compete
in the renewable electricity market place. This electricity will
be comparatively more expensive than what follows because it will
bear development costs and include no economies of scale. Grant
funding should be used to bridge the gap so that wave power becomes
a competitive option for utility companies to fulfil their renewable
energy obligations.
9. None of the points above will achieve
UK offshore wave power unless seabed sites are made available.
The present round of discussions between DTI, DETR, MAFF and Crown
Estates regarding consenting procedures for offshore wind power
ought to provide a useful basis. However, the present discussions
have yet to achieve amalgamation of the nightmarish combination
of departments and procedures into the desirable one-stop-shop
for potential developers. The complexities of the process mean
uncertainty, delay, wasted time and resources for small companies
who can't afford them. The DTI should take the lead to create
a structure which delivers a one-stop-shop.
10. A further requirement is a far-reaching
programme to up-grade the weak peripheral grid areas critical
to connection to the wave power resource. This would also aid
development of other renewable energy resources such as wind power.
Utility companies now have somewhat more incentive to upgrade
the grid for renewables due to the approaching renewable energy
obligation, but further carrots and sticks are required to institute
and up-grade programme sufficient to guarantee that deployment
of wave power development can go ahead rapidly on a large scale.
It is not acceptable that the cost of this task be left entirely
to the developers of renewable energy themselves.
List of Appendices
1. Greenpeace Wave Power Campaign Pack.
2. Commission for Wave Power in Scotland's
Five Point Action Plan for Wave Power and proposal for a wave
power test centre.
Footnotes
i. Nature's Bottom Line, Climate Protection
and the Carbon Logic, Greenpeace UK, 1998, 4pp (80pp carbon
logic full technical analysis available on request).
ii. Glendenning, I, 1977, Energy from the
Sea, Chemistry and Industry, p588-599, as cited in Ross, D, 1995,
Power from the Waves, OUP, 212pp.
iii. New and Renewable Energy: Prospects
in the UK for the 21st Century, Supporting Analysis, A report
produced by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry, March
1999, p158, 258pp.
iv. Thorpe, TW, 1999, An Overview of Wave
Energy Technologies: Status, Performance and Costs, paper in proceedings
of DTI/ImechE sponsored seminar Wave Power: Moving Towards Commercial
Viability, 30 Nov 1999.
v. Thorpe, T, February 2001, paper in preparation.
vi. Woodside and OPT joint News Release,
January 3rd 2001, Woodside invests in Ocean Power Technologies.
vii. Nielsen, K, and Meyer, NI, 1998, The
Danish Wave Energy Programme, Proceedings of the Third World Wave
Energy Conference, Patras, Greece, October 1998.
viii. The Marine Foresight Panel of the
Office of Science and Technology, Energies from the Sea,
April 1999, 29pp.
ix. Paper to DTI/ImechE seminar on wave
power at the Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Wave Power,
Moving Towards Commercial Viability, 30 November 1999.
x. Personal communications Feb 2001.
February 2001
1 The Commission operates under the chairmanship of
the Scottish Trades Union Congress, with a secretariat provided
by the Scottish Council Foundation. The Commission comprises a
cross-party group of Members of the Scottish Parliament who hold
relevant briefs, utility company input from the Head of Generation
of Scottish and Southern, the leading wave power expert Tom Thorpe,
renewable energy investor Fred Olsen Production, and Community
Development organisation Forward Scotland. Scottish Enterprise,
Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Power, Wavegen, Ocean
Power Delivery and Greenpeace offer advice to the Commission as
required. Back
2
500,000 tonnes CO2 approximately corresponds to 524,000,000kWh
of generation using 955g/kWh for the coal-based Australian electricity
mix, which corresponds to 4,800 of the 50kW Ocean Power Technology
wave power units assuming a 25 per cent capacity factor. Back
| 
